'Flame war' or Constitutional debate?

vanity ^ | 3/20/02 | tpaine

[tpaine]

On the afternnoon of 3/18 Texaggie79 and I got into a type of discussion that is becoming all too common at FR.
In an effort to defend his position as a drug warrior, tex decided to attack the motives of his percieved enemies, 'the libertarians'. --- Here is that thread:

Cannabis Cafes Set To Open All Around Britain As Law Changes
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/648477/posts?q=1&&page=201

Posts #205/206 are one of our more typical exchanges. -- Shortly after our disagreement ended, -- on that thread.

Later that same evening, I had just responded to a concealed carry question at #15, - on this thread:

Sheriff says 'gun nut' concealing the truth
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/648911/posts

---- When my correspondent asked if I was still 'harrassing' texaggie. --- I denied any such intent, -- and Tex immediately posted the URL of the cannibus tread as his 'proof' of being harrassed.

Thus, Tex set off another 'flame war' between us on the same subject as the previous post.

Eventually, others on the thread protested his hijack of the thread. -- In response, I tried to show that texaggies constitutional position was not only against drugs, but could also be applied against guns.

-- Just as this point was about to be established, -- the anonomods decided that tex & I were having a 'flamewar' .
'They' - [JR?] -- suspended tex & I for 24 hrs, --- while we were in mid-discussion of a constitutional issue on gun control.

No one was violating any socalled forum 'rules' at that point, in my estimation.
I'd like to protest this rather silly form of censorship. -- Tex & I were hurting no one but each other with our exchange.

And for the umteenth time, I'd like to call for a better definition of the posting guidlelines, and for some sort of accountability from the capracious acts of the anonomods.

I won't hold my breath for a reasonable answer.
-- And please, -- spare me any more snide whine n' cheese remarks. ---- I, and many others, are well aware that the FR-PTB don't give a damn about dissenting opinions..

[Bob J]

Constitutionality is, of course, one issue. Are you saying you two agree on the moral and societal consequences issues? I was under the impression you two were on completely different sides of the entire WOD issue.

[tpaine]

I've said enough for now. We need aggies input before this goes any further. - And I doubt that it should.

[Texaggie79]

We both oppose the FEDERAL WOD. There is no constitutional president for it. Were we disagree is if states can and should prohibit hard drugs.

I think pot should be legalized, but adamantly defend hard drugs remaining illegal at the state level.

So technically, it would not be a debate on the WOD, but on the constitutionality of States banning drugs.

[Bob J]

Just fleshing this thing out. How do you respond to what Texaggie said? Do you guys vehemently disagree or will you end up smooching each other by the end of the show...heheh.

[wingnuts'nbolts]

I like the way you think on this point . it has a great deal of potential !